R v Johnson - [2011] VSC 633

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 195 of 2010

THE QUEEN

MATTHEW CHARLES JOHNSON

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 October 2011
DATE OF SENTENCE:	8 December 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Johnson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 633

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – One count of murder – Sentencing consistent with jury verdict – Planned murder – Murder occurred in prison – Deceased a prosecution witness - Absence of remorse – Extensive prior criminal history – Whether parole will be granted if sentenced to life imprisonment.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M Rochford and Ms K Argiropoulos	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr W Stuart and Mr D Drake	C D Traill Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Matthew Charles Johnson, on 29 September 2011, after a trial before a jury you were found guilty of the murder of Carl Williams. You murdered Williams on 19 April 2010 in the High Security Unit 1 in the Acacia section of Barwon Prison. On 27 October 2011, I heard submissions from the Crown and from Mr Stuart of counsel on your behalf. During those submissions your counsel told me that you maintain your innocence. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.

It is now my responsibility to sentence you for that crime consistently with the jury’s verdict. I do so on the basis that you murdered Carl Williams, not out of any need to defend yourself as you claimed at your trial but because you knew Williams was providing assistance to the Victoria Police in relation to the murders of Terrence and Christine Hodgson at Kew in May 2004 and the case they were preparing against former police officer, Paul Dale, and inmate at Barwon Prison, Rodney Collins, for those murders. My own opinion is that your defence at your trial of self defence was fanciful.

Background

The evidence the jury heard at your trial indicates that for some time prior to April 2010 you and Williams had been in the same unit at Barwon prison. You said in your evidence that you had known Williams for about 10 years and obviously maintained some contact with him. For a time at Barwon prison you shared a unit with Williams and his father George. After George Williams’ release from custody on 20 June 2009 you shared the unit with Carl Williams and Thomas Ivanovic.

Williams had made two statements to police about the murder of Mr and Mrs Hodgson. The first was made in 2007. That statement was mainly to do with the corrupt relationship between Dale and Williams. In the second statement, made on 19 January 2009, Williams incriminated himself, Dale and Collins in the murder of the Hodgsons. He made a third statement on that same date which reflected him having listened to some telephone intercept material.

The statements that Carl Williams made in January 2009 about the Hodgson killings…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Johnson

Details

AGLC: R v Johnson [2011] VSC 633
Case: [2011] VSC 633
Decision Date: 8 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Johnson was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the appellant, Johnson, was convicted of murder. The deceased, a former associate of Johnson, had become a prosecution witness against him and was murdered in prison. Johnson appealed against the severity of his sentence, arguing it was inconsistent with the jury's verdict and his actions, which he claimed were not premeditated. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was consistent with the jury's verdict and whether it adequately reflected the circumstances of the murder.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sentence was proportionate to the crime and whether the trial judge had properly considered the factors relevant to sentencing. The court examined whether the sentence was appropriate given the premeditated nature of the murder, Johnson's extensive criminal history, and his lack of remorse. Additionally, the court had to consider the implications of Johnson's potential eligibility for parole if sentenced to life imprisonment.

The High Court found that the sentence was proportionate and consistent with the jury's verdict. The court emphasised the heinous nature of the crime, the absence of remorse, and Johnson's extensive criminal record. It held that the trial judge had appropriately weighed the relevant factors and that the sentence reflected the severity of the crime. The court also noted that Johnson's eligibility for parole did not undermine the sentence's appropriateness, given the circumstances. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The final orders confirmed that Johnson's conviction and sentence for murder were affirmed, with no reduction in the severity of the sentence. The court's decision underscored the importance of considering the gravity of the crime and the offender's history in determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders